CYCC 2011 voting result

[Fred Harvey]

Re: Conflict of Interest Challenges?

"I'm betting that the Province's definition of conflict of interest is not the same throughout all of its current law.

Yes, but the definition of conflict of interest contained in the federal act you've noted seems quite broad to me; perhaps an indication that government's understanding of COI has been evolving beyond the narrow definition you favour so strongly. "

You are betting and guessing on the laws! As a recently retired municipal politician, I can assure you that the provincial conflict act is quite universal and consistent. It refers to pecuniary interest only.

Can you not grasp the difference between conflict of interest laws, which I have pointed out are largely irrelevant in this scenario, and the organizations' efforts to legislate ethical behaviour?

IMHO it is impossible to legislate ethical behaviour - if you try you are going to alienate the small group of people that remain useful to the organization. Each situation should be judged on its merits, and most reasonable people will recognize unethical behaviour when they see it, and act accordingly. But don't wrap it into some spurious "conflict of interest" charges.

Once again, I do not see a problem with a governor working on a bid, and voting for it, unless big personal money is involved.

As I believe we are dancing on the head of a pin again, that's it for me!

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Conflict of Interest Challenges?

The provincial municipal act refers specifically to "pecuniary" interest only when declaring a conflict. ...

Yes, I saw that when I looked up the act (Municipal Conflict of Interest Act). However, when I went to the Province's e-Laws page and searched current consolidated provincial law for the term 'conflict of interest', I got 1,524 hits spread over 145 Acts. I'm betting that the Province's definition of conflict of interest is not the same throughout all of its current law.

... The federal conflict of interest act refers to using ones position, and knowledge gleaned from that position, to benefit the personal interest of self or others. ...

Yes, but the definition of conflict of interest contained in the federal act you've noted seems quite broad to me; perhaps an indication that government's understanding of COI has been evolving beyond the narrow definition you favour so strongly. For others who might be reading this, here's the definition to which you referred:

PART 1

CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES

4. For the purposes of this Act, a public
office holder is in a conflict of interest when he
or she exercises an official power, duty or
function that provides an opportunity to further
his or her private interests or those of his or her
relatives or friends or to improperly further
another person’s private interests.

... There are many other examples you could research yourself, but the point is that legally it really has to be a financial or pecuniary benefit to carry any weight. Of course there are many interpretations of conflict in the dictionaries these days, most of which refer to what is really unethical behaviour. The CFC could, and perhaps should, pass by-laws to try to control such behaviour, but such by-laws would carry no ability to impose sanctions for illegal or criminal behaviour. That would be up to the courts, and what I have been trying to say is that the courts would need to see some clearly defined financial benefit. ...

I think you've headed off on the wrong track here, Fred. I'm not talking about criminal behaviour, or illegalities, or sanctions. None of these things are likely to apply. What I've been talking about is this: should a group bidding for the right to organize a CFC fixture event be entitled to the expectation that the CFC will use its best efforts to ensure that a decision is made fairly and objectively? I'm saying that the CFC should set a high ethical standard for the conduct of its business.

... I believe your opinion takes far too wide a definition for conflict of interest which is not only not supported by reasonable people, but would in fact be a major impediment to an organization already in trouble.

Based on 30+ years working in the banking industry, I can't believe that conducting business in an ethical manner would be an impediment to any organization run by honest people.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: Conflict of Interest Challenges?

The provincial municipal act refers specifically to "pecuniary" interest only when declaring a conflict.

The federal conflict of interest act refers to using ones position, and knowledge gleaned from that position, to benefit the personal interest of self or others.

There are many other examples you could research yourself, but the point is that legally it really has to be a financial or pecuniary benefit to carry any weight. Of course there are many interpretations of conflict in the dictionaries these days, most of which refer to what is really unethical behaviour. The CFC could, and perhaps should, pass by-laws to try to control such behaviour, but such by-laws would carry no ability to impose sanctions for illegal or criminal behaviour. That would be up to the courts, and what I have been trying to say is that the courts would need to see some clearly defined financial benefit.

I believe your opinion takes far too wide a definition for conflict of interest which is not only not supported by reasonable people, but would in fact be a major impediment to an organization already in trouble.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Conflict of Interest Challenges?

... ""Conflict of interest" in the usual sense refers specifically to direct potential financial benefit only. ...

Source of this information?

... Any other "conflict" is only in the minds of whoever is arguing, and has no legal status whatsoever. ...

Source of this information? Are you a lawyer, fred?

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

... Alternatively, we could simply say that if you live within 100 (or 250) miles of a nominated location you may not vote. This way only the truly disinvolved people would get to choose. ...

Hi Fred,

You would perhaps get the people most objective, but also the least informed, about any particular bid. I have no love for the CFC, but in this case it seems to me that only people who are clearly financially benefiting from a bid (say making at least $1000) should be prevented from voting. There could also be the case where, say, guys in Alberta give advice to guys in Ontario about how to draw GMs to their events (conditions, contracts, etc.) so putting some sort of geographical restriction seems like it won't solve the problem, assuming there is a problem.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

Objectivity doesn't exist...

Thank you for clarifying your position for me.

... Let's use an example: Let's say Toronto and Fredericton both put in bids for a Co. The Toronto bid committee consists of all of the Toronto area Governors. The Fredericton bid contains all of the N.B. Governors. All of the Toronto Governors vote for their bid. All of the N.B. Governors vote for their bid. The Toronto bid wins. That is fair.

It's fair in your opinion but I think there are others, me included, who would like to think that the governors would take the time to examine each bid in detail and that the winning bid would win on the basis of its relative merits rather than on the basis of mindless block voting.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

Objectivity doesn't exist, Peter. Each Governor having a vote unless s/he is in conflict of interest is fair.

I feel like we are going around a mulberry bush.

Let's use an example: Let's say Toronto and Fredericton both put in bids for a Co. The Toronto bid committee consists of all of the Toronto area Governors. The Fredericton bid contains all of the N.B. Governors. All of the Toronto Governors vote for their bid. All of the N.B. Governors vote for their bid. The Toronto bid wins. That is fair.

If the governors are interested in bidding on events, why are the events being put up for open bids from the public or general membership? People are taking time and expense to prepare bids which don't appear to have any chance of being successful.

You might recall the CFC pin which was advertised on Ebay and the listing was posted here on Chess Talk. I ended up with the pin. I wanted to compare it to my gold pin. It kind of reminds me of a time when I liked the CFC more than I like it now. Possibly there were more idealists then and the bylaws are a result of misguided liberal idealism.

[Fred McKim]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

Our model differs from Olympic bidding or FIDE bidding in that in those cases a country brings forward a bid and everyone votes including the countries that bring forward the bid.

In our case, bids are brought forward by individuals and/or committees, who may or may not have voting rights.

If we had a model where each bid was brought forward by a single governor, then it would seem more of a fair system.

Alternatively, we could simply say that if you live within 100 (or 250) miles of a nominated location you may not vote. This way only the truly disinvolved people would get to choose.

I think regular Governor business such as election of Officers and tournament locations do not fall under conflict of interest, unless there is a potential financial gain, which 99.9% of the time there would not be for these type of endeavours.

However, when we get into special one-time situations, especially dealing with funding to strong players and juniors there might well be conflict of interest.

[Ken Craft]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

Objectivity doesn't exist, Peter. Each Governor having a vote unless s/he is in conflict of interest is fair.

I feel like we are going around a mulberry bush.

Let's use an example: Let's say Toronto and Fredericton both put in bids for a Co. The Toronto bid committee consists of all of the Toronto area Governors. The Fredericton bid contains all of the N.B. Governors. All of the Toronto Governors vote for their bid. All of the N.B. Governors vote for their bid. The Toronto bid wins. That is fair.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

Every decision I make is subjective, Peter. I make them through my lens and my biases. If there was some objective analysis that existed around issues facing the Federation then we would find unanimity on all motions. Obviously we do not.

Ken, should I infer from your comments that your position is that there is no such thing as a fair and objective decision at the CFC? If that's not what you intended, then what is your position re the questions below?

Should a group of people who want to submit a bid to organize one of the CFC's fixture events be entitled to the expectation that their bid will be considered fairly and objectively by the CFC, or not? If your answer is that they should be entitled to that expectation, then explain to me how the CFC can satisfy that expectation by having decision makers who sit on the organizing committees of competing bidders?

[Fred Harvey]

Re: Conflict of Interest Challenges?

To repeat what I posted earlier in this thread, without the "pinhead" embellishments....

""Conflict of interest" in the usual sense refers specifically to direct potential financial benefit only. It also refers to the "appearance" of a conflict.

If people feel that executives or governers are going to driectly benefit financially from any of the bids, then there is a case. Any other "conflict" is only in the minds of whoever is arguing, and has no legal status whatsoever. It will then be up to the CFC to decide as to whether the actions were appropriate.

Seems to me that if someone works for a bid, they have every right to support it....sort of like voting for yourself in an election....."

Nice to see some sanity in the deabate!

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Conflict of Interest Challenges?

Am I concerned that an involved governer will vote for his own bid? No, I'm not. In fact, I should probably demand it. And should it lead to an arms race by bidding teams to involve governers in their bid, well, that's a good thing.

Peter, Roger hits the nail right on the head. We need and want governors to be involved, to submit bid and/or help others. Telling them they can't both help and vote is counterproductive. We want governors to be involved.

Conflict of interest rules are first and foremost meant to protect the organization from individuals who have a competing financial interest. To extend that definition to try and achieve your utopian ideal of an unbiased vote is neither possible, enforceable, or even desirable!

[Ken Craft]

Re: CYCC 2011 voting result

Every decision I make is subjective, Peter. I make them through my lens and my biases. If there was some objective analysis that existed around issues facing the Federation then we would find unanimity on all motions. Obviously we do not.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Conflict of Interest Challenges?

Hi Peter:

In the recent CYCC bid competition, it appears a few governors were significantly involved in assisting each team to put together their bid, to give them advice on how to make it the most attractive. I think we could safely assume they were no longer " objective " under your broader conflict of interest definition. It appears they had no financial interest in the outcome. But they were not named on the team's formal " Organizing Committee ".

In future, do you see each side being able to challenge the right to vote of governors in this situation, before the Ethics Committee, if the governors, before the vote have not yet declared their conflict?

Bids can be hotly contested ( though we seldom see it ) - the 2011 CYCC tournament vote was a 15-14 vote ( I can't put my finger on this total anywhere at the moment, but I think this was it with the " missed " votes counted ). I foresee use of this challenge in future where parties perceive the vote to be close, if this manoeuver is allowed.

Is this what you are proposing?

Bob

Moreover, some of the team was not announced until after the bid was decided (e.g. the TD). Is it proposed that the organizing team be 'frozen' and governers are not allowed to join in after the bid is decided? Otherwise, someone sensitive to the appearence of conflict of interest could cry foul....

Note that the TD is often (and also in this case) from somewhere anywhere in the country. If a TD is not announced as part of the bid, (i.e. the one person who might get a financial incentive), are all competent TDs with experience in large tournaments (i.e. those who have the most knowledge among us about what a good bid looks like) to be banned from voting?

As far as financial interest is concerned, the financial interest of those of the bidding team is probably negative, certainly so once the cash value of their donated time is included (not to mention the downside of a guaranteed prize fund). Perhaps the worry is that they will vote for the other bid. :-) Also, anybody who plans to play (with possible travel expenses) or has a reasonable expectation of prize money has greater positive financial inducements than the organizing team.

Am I concerned that an involved governer will vote for his own bid? No, I'm not. In fact, I should probably demand it. And should it lead to an arms race by bidding teams to involve governers in their bid, well, that's a good thing.

[Bob Armstrong]

Conflict of Interest Challenges?

Hi Peter:

In the recent CYCC bid competition, it appears a few governors were significantly involved in assisting each team to put together their bid, to give them advice on how to make it the most attractive. I think we could safely assume they were no longer " objective " under your broader conflict of interest definition. It appears they had no financial interest in the outcome. But they were not named on the team's formal " Organizing Committee ".

In future, do you see each side being able to challenge the right to vote of governors in this situation, before the Ethics Committee, if the governors, before the vote have not yet declared their conflict?

Bids can be hotly contested ( though we seldom see it ) - the 2011 CYCC tournament vote was a 15-14 vote ( I can't put my finger on this total anywhere at the moment, but I think this was it with the " missed " votes counted ). I foresee use of this challenge in future where parties perceive the vote to be close, if this manoeuver is allowed.

Is this what you are proposing?

Bob